Let me be clear: if everyone in the entire country (outside of the Amish who I'm not sure have the capability to pasteurize/homogenize) decided tomorrow that they weren't going to buy raw milk, the country would be a better place. There are no health benefits, it isn't cheaper, and the potential for the spread of disease makes it a dangerous commodity to sell. This does not necessarily mean people shouldn't consume raw milk from their own animals in some circumstances -- at least then you have control over the condition of the animal and you know your risks -- but even that I'd advise against unless it was necessary for some reason (for example a financial or practical matter). This is just basic fact.p

Part of that statement is complete BS. Raw milk IS cheaper than processed for a lot of people because they get if from the farm. It doesn't have to go through a distributor tha tprocesses it and a clean farm is just as safe as a clean facotry. Asd lsong as the farmer makes sure his cattle/goats are clean and healthy, raw milk is as safe as processed. As long as you do not let it sit out.

Processed milk can be just as dangerous as raw if let out to warm and there have been recalls on processed milk, as well as eggs, vegetables for bacterial infections so processed food isn't neccessarily inheriently safer than raw in a lot of things, It's just more tested.

It is how you care and use it that I think mainly determines it's safety. If adults want to drink raw milk, they should have every right and if the farmer can produce safe raw milk, he should be allowed to sell it to those who want to buy it.

On the matter of using religious belief to try and heal when medical science -can- heal or has a higher chance, the sciewnce should be used. Faith alone isn't enough and for you who profess faith, think about this. God (whoever you believe in) gave us brains to use. We developed science and improved medicines to help health. Why not use what god gave us to improve our body's health?

This is the problem that I have with ideologues such as yourself. They make everything out to be so incredibly simple and ignore the shades of grey and competing factors that are involved with every political question. Whether or not the government should crack down on the sale of raw milk isn't as simple as painting your face blue and yelling "FREEEEEEEDOM" while wearing a kilt.

This is the problem I have with people like you. You insist everything is complicated and if I don't agree, you try to paint me as some sort of radical nutcase who cannot tell the difference between the movies and the real world.

If the government cracks down on the sale of raw milk it will probably prevent the spread of many communicable diseases. If they don't, people get to choose to consume raw milk which has no tangible benefits. Basically what you have here is liberty for the sake of liberty (which I am not opposed to) versus cracking down on a substance who's sale really only has negative consequences for our nation. If you think this situation is so simple, it's because the former so vastly outweighs the latter in your mind that you don't even take it into consideration. I find that troubling.

I see. It's okay for you to decide, based on an assumption, that my reasoning is simple, but not for me to believe that the basic issue is simple.

What about vaccines? A number of diseases that were nearly-eradicated previously have returned thanks to the anti-vaccination movement (which is actually related tangentially to the raw milk movement). These people believe, despite the fact that there is no good evidence, that vaccines are harmful to children and have decided not to give them to their kids. Guess what: they're a tangible bodycount here. The diseases we vaccinate against are dangerous and extremely communicable, and it isn't just kids dying who's parents chose not to vaccinate them. I'm going to assume you'd be against legislation forcing parents to vaccinate their children if they choose to live in a large community/have their kid attend school?

Let me be clear: if everyone in the entire country (outside of the Amish who I'm not sure have the capability to pasteurize/homogenize) decided tomorrow that they weren't going to buy raw milk, the country would be a better place. There are no health benefits, it isn't cheaper, and the potential for the spread of disease makes it a dangerous commodity to sell. This does not necessarily mean people shouldn't consume raw milk from their own animals in some circumstances -- at least then you have control over the condition of the animal and you know your risks -- but even that I'd advise against unless it was necessary for some reason (for example a financial or practical matter). This is just basic fact.

So in light of all of these facts, how do the French justify the wholesale endangerment of their society with the peril of raw milk?

You can say you're against laws forcing the hand of people even when doing so would make our country a better place, and there are a lot of circumstances in which I agree with you, but not all. There are competing factors here: public good versus private freedom. Private freedom should not always win out; and it doesn't. Every single law we have on the books is a restriction of private freedom, even laws against murder. In all of those situations we recognize that giving up our freedom to violently end another human being is a necessary sacrifice to make our country a better place.

That isn't my philosophy. But why should I stop you from simplifying my beliefs now?

I think giving up our freedom to purchase raw milk -- which has no benefits and is more expensive than processed milk -- to stop the occasional epidemic... Well, that doesn't seem anywhere near as simple as you're making it out to be. But then again, in the black and white world view of the committed ideologue, nothing is that complicated.

You seemed able to make a simple and straightforward case for banning raw milk, and to oversimplify or misrepresent what you apparently think I believe, but somehow you think I am the committed ideologue with a black and white worldview. Huh. Not sure how that works. It's kinda funny to me that the champions for nuance so often seem the first ones to attempt to simplify everything with which they do not agree so they can wave it away as not understanding how the world works.

You think the issue is simple, well then you must not understand all the factors involved. Complaining about oversimplifying and performing it at the same time.

I did not say reasons for supporting one side of the issue or the other were simple. I said the issue was simple.

I get the "if you understood the way the world works you'd agree with me" bit. I do. I sometimes fall into that myself. Probably have in this very thread. But let's be honest. It's not very persuasive.

I'm sure there are other cases. So how comfortable are you with the law saying, you're not allowed to adhere to what you believe because some people disapprove of the results?

Let's not sugar-coat or move the goalposts: The 'results' that 'some people disapprove of' involve serious bodily injury or death to someone who has not freely and voluntarily chosen to take part in that belief system. If I practiced a religion that involved sacrificing babies on an altar under the first new moon after the summer solstice, I would expect the law stepping in and saying that wasn't okay. If I practiced a religion that dictated that I had to break the legs of my children when they reached some arbitrary age, then I'd expect that the law would step in.

Yes, I know. No one else in the whole world can do what I and/or my family have done. I am, apparently, supposed to assume everyone else is wholly incapable ever doing what I did. What? You didn't say that? Hey, guess what? I didn't say everyone else was expected to do what I did or my family did. I explained that I am not unfamiliar with the problems.

Then why bring them up? It's not offering a solution and it contributes nothing substantial. My family was on food stamps when I was a child, I went through most of my formative years as a kid without health insurance, and I'd still not advocate that it offers anything substantial to this debate. In fact, much of what we're debating consists of you not really offering much in the way of solutions except to shoot down any attempt by the government to find one and not seeming to care enough to talk about anything a business could possibly do on their end. Your ideology at this point is helpless, actionless, and quite poor, if you ask me. You want government action crippled, but you don't feel like holding businesses to a higher standard -- that's the message I'm getting here.

Quote

I didn't say it was a positive. I said there are programs to help people in need buy food, which undermines your assertion that nothing is being done.

Which I am saying is not really a point you can make considering you're not for government interference. Would you eliminate food stamps if you had the choice? If the answer is yes, then you most certainly can't use this as a point to support your ideology. If you can agree that some government interference is good for maintaining a certain standard of life and that it can be used judiciously in cases where people would be worse off without it, well, then we're getting somewhere.

Quote

I am sorry that every choice in the world is not between sets of perfect options. If you expect me to believe we can fix this by legislation, you're going build a much better case than I have ever seen.

I don't really know what to expect from you, given you haven't really offered much on that note. You keep putting legislation on the chopping block without telling me how you'd go about things differently with your libertarian ideals. Yes, this is an offer. Do enlighten me on how you'd handle things differently.

From what I've gathered, you're in the "sucks to be you" camp that recognizes that some people have less-than-ideal situations, but aren't willing/don't care enough/whatever the excuse may be to do anything about it except shrug and say, "you have a choice!" and leave them to fend for themselves. If I'm wrong, please feel free to jump in and correct me here.

Quote

I am horrified that you want to start punishing people if they believe something you have decided for them is "baseless garbage". I am horrified that you want to establish precedent for basically ignoring a person's religious beliefs and forcing someone whose religious beliefs you do not share to conform to how you believe they should behave.

Except it is. I didn't deem it that way, there is no credible science anywhere to back faith healing as a legitimate means of treating illnesses. Besides, what you're saying is a fallacious summary, as it is. Nowhere did I say I wanted to punish people for believing a certain thing or forcing them to do anything. I would punish the worst-case outcome when common treatments they could have sought are ignored. Besides, they have a choice! You love choices, right? They can use faith healing and hope their kid doesn't die and they go to prison -- or they can responsibly seek the advice of a medical professional when it turns out their methods aren't working and their dependent's health takes a turn for the worse.

Quote

Yeah, implying the parents wanted the children to die is mean, no matter how you spin it.

Except I didn't imply that at all, that was your assumption of it.

Quote

Good intent is not enough. This is why I oppose your solution to force other people to conform to what you want. Good intentions are not enough.

Then I oppose your good intent of opposing my good intent of opposing other people's good intent. And so it goes.

Quote

We cannot legislate danger out of the world. And trying to do so only creates different dangers.

So why bother, right? Let's hand a gun to every citizen no matter what, let parents fill their suffering, cancer-ridden children with pleasant thoughts in high hopes that everything turns out okay, remove all stoplights, get rid of law enforcement, remove sanitation standards, building codes, workplace safety codes, food inspection, and do away with any standards we uphold against convicted criminals.

Really now, where are you drawing the line on "legislating danger"? You really have to help me out here because you're being awfully ambiguous.

Yes I am, because you've failed to address when I do and do not have to respect someone's religion. If Jesus tells me to get in a car and drive and I hit someone on accident, under the logic you've provided, any attempt to bring me to justice is an attack on my religious freedom. If it sounds absurd, it's because it is.

Quote

And now you're assuming I want to defend murder. Wow. I see, you're one of those. "If you'd allow someone to die in this circumstance that I condemn, then you must be okay with worst case of murder I can think of."

No, I'm trying to figure out where you stand because you haven't been very clear on the matter and you haven't set a single standard of to what extremes you'd take your anti-government legislatory ideology except to tell me when I've hit on something absurd.

Quote

As best I can determine, the parents in the story you brought up did not kill their children. They were not, for example carelessly flinging knives about or exposing the children to poisonous snakes.

And what if they were? They didn't mean to kill their kids then, either.

Quote

Not taking the children to the doctor was wrong, in my opinion, but I don't hold to their religious beliefs. In any case, you're avoiding my question. You apparently expect to use the law to prevent people from doing or not doing things that allow harm to children. Where does that stop? Where do you draw the line?

I don't expect the law to prevent people -- I expect the law to punish people accordingly when their decisions lead to bad consequences. That's what law does. Law doesn't necessarily prevent someone from stabbing someone else -- people make those decisions of their own accord. It brings that person to justice when their action infringes on someone else's right to live without a knife embedded in their chest. If a responsible adult wants to decide for themselves that Jesus can cure their malignant tumor, fine, I hope they're ready to deal with the consequence of that. Pretending that faith healing is a responsible decision when someone else who cannot decide for themselves is forced to deal with it is foolish.

Your examples are poor ones. In the latter two, the death wasn't a result of a direct decision the adult made to deny them proven medical treatment. Choosing faith healing is not a freak accident, it is an intentional choice, whether or not the outcome is death. In the first example, it would be negligent of the father to make his son lay on the ground in the woods and sprinkle him with dirt in hopes that the magic woodland fairies would come sprinkle him with healing dust if a reasonable attempt could be made to find help nearby.

I don't think you're reading what I'm saying. The raw milk thing? I'm not on either side of the debate. I'm saying it's about competing interests -- protecting the public from themselves versus freedom -- I am not endorsing either side; maybe I've done a poor job of communicating that though. In my last post in particular there was a paragraph where it seemed like I was taking a stand, but my intention was only to present the other side since you were so vehemently presenting yours. I have repeatedly said that I don't want to have that philosophical, value-based argument, because I actually don't want to.

I don't feel strong about this. If they removed the law prohibiting the sale of raw milk between states, I would not care much. This is not an important issue to me -- if people want to consume potentially hazardous substances, I do not care, though I understand that enacting such regulations does protect people from themselves (which happens to be something I personally feel dubious towards).

Let's not sugar-coat or move the goalposts: The 'results' that 'some people disapprove of' involve serious bodily injury or death to someone who has not freely and voluntarily chosen to take part in that belief system. If I practiced a religion that involved sacrificing babies on an altar under the first new moon after the summer solstice, I would expect the law stepping in and saying that wasn't okay. If I practiced a religion that dictated that I had to break the legs of my children when they reached some arbitrary age, then I'd expect that the law would step in.

Choosing to cause harm where none existed is not the same as not getting treatment for harm already present.

I didn't say everyone else was expected to do what I did or my family did. I explained that I am not unfamiliar with the problems.

Then why bring them up?

Um, because I was explaining that I am not unfamiliar with the problems. But I get it. You think my experience is irrelevant. I don't know how I am going to prevent it from influencing my opinion, but I promise I'll try real hard. At least as hard as you are at preventing your experience from influencing your opinion.

It's not offering a solution and it contributes nothing substantial. My family was on food stamps when I was a child, I went through most of my formative years as a kid without health insurance, and I'd still not advocate that it offers anything substantial to this debate. In fact, much of what we're debating consists of you not really offering much in the way of solutions except to shoot down any attempt by the government to find one and not seeming to care enough to talk about anything a business could possibly do on their end.

I was not aware I was expected to solve this problem. I'm not sure offering a solution here would be helpful to anyone in actuality, but I'll see what I can do. You'll have to wait a while.

Your ideology at this point is helpless, actionless, and quite poor, if you ask me. You want government action crippled, but you don't feel like holding businesses to a higher standard -- that's the message I'm getting here.

I want government action crippled? Where did that come from? That is almost a whole other discussion. I don't feel like holding businesses to a higher standard? That depends on which standards we're talking about and what you mean by "holding." If you mean putting public pressure on businesses, I am 100% all for it. If you mean passing laws that mandate behavior, no, I'm not for that. And no, that does not mean I want government action crippled. It means I want it applied properly, rather than abused to appease people who want to control the behavior of others.

Would you eliminate food stamps if you had the choice? If the answer is yes, then you most certainly can't use this as a point to support your ideology.

I didn't use food stamps as a point to support my ideology. I used the existence of government assistance programs to point out that your claim of nothing being done was not true. And since the programs do actually exist, whether I support them or not is irrelevant to whether or not they disprove your claim. To answer your question, I would privatize the entire program.

If you can agree that some government interference is good for maintaining a certain standard of life and that it can be used judiciously in cases where people would be worse off without it, well, then we're getting somewhere.

That depends entirely upon what is meant by "government interference". Is there a role for government in society? Yes. Is that role to be mandating all manner of behavior for everyone who does not behave as this or that group's ideology believes is best for everyone? No. Is that role protecting the rights of individuals? Yes.

I don't really know what to expect from you, given you haven't really offered much on that note. You keep putting legislation on the chopping block without telling me how you'd go about things differently with your libertarian ideals. Yes, this is an offer. Do enlighten me on how you'd handle things differently.

From what I've gathered, you're in the "sucks to be you" camp that recognizes that some people have less-than-ideal situations, but aren't willing/don't care enough/whatever the excuse may be to do anything about it except shrug and say, "you have a choice!" and leave them to fend for themselves. If I'm wrong, please feel free to jump in and correct me here.

Very few if any people are in the "sucks to be you" camp. It's convenient to claim people who don't agree with us are there, but about 99.999% of the time, it is not true. And it's not true now. I realize some people think helping people equals government doing something. I am not one of those people. Contrary to what you seem to believe, that does not mean I am opposed to helping people. I have watched government try to help people for a long time now. I watched politicians promote "affordable housing" only to see people seethe with anger about predatory lenders when the housing market bubble burst. Even trying to mention the work of politicians in that mess will get you dismissed as an anti-government crackpot. I watched the government keep interest rates artificially low, and then saw people scramble to the be the one to demonize banks the most. I have watched Medicaid and Medicare grow and grow, contributing to higher and higher medical costs for everyone, and then saw people insist it was all the fault of the private market. I watched the "war on poverty" give food stamps to people in need, and I saw people buy candy with them, and I saw people live in the welfare system, barely getting by, but not really trying hard to get off of welfare because then they'd actually suffer an income drop. And I see people blaming businesses and banks and every single last person they can point to and cry "greedy capitalist!" And I have tried to discuss that government contributes as much to the problems as anything else, and watched people start accusing me of not wanting people to get help. I've talked to be people who clearly expect me to be ashamed of daring to think that maybe government, an instrument of force and top-down control, is not the best way to help everyone. Well, I'm not ashamed of noticing a problem that some people refuse to acknowledge.

The thing is, I don't have to know all the answers. One of the things I like about libertarianism is it acknowledges that in the real world, top-down solutions that expect everyone to conform often don't actually work as intended. People are not pawns you can simply control with laws. Certain drugs, prostitution, and in some cases interior design without a licence, are illegal. Yet for some reason these things are still available. We have had decades of government programs with the intent to help bring down health care prices for people, to help people get by when they are in financial need, and as prices go up and people remain on welfare. I question the ability of government programs to effectively address these problems, and some people look at that and the best they can muster up is to accuse me of not wanting people to get help. Really?

What would I do differently? I would start getting government out of the way of all sort of things. Like people who want to braid hair, or make flower arrangements. Why? Because I want people to suffer? No. Because I want to help people create jobs that help them and others find some financial success. I would also, and this is hypothetically assuming I have the power to accomplish any of this, start a nationwide private network of churches, non-profits, philanthropists and the like to see that people in need get help at the local level where it can benefit them the most by responding to the facts on the ground rather than expecting people to conform to rules established from on high by people who believe themselves smarter than everyone else. All those wealthy people who claim they want to pay more in taxes, I'd hit them up for money first, since they seem to think they have too much of it. I'd see if they really believed in helping people or just in government taking money and claiming to do it for them. In broad strokes, the plan would be to find ways to empower individuals, not the government, to take control over their own lives.

Nowhere did I say I wanted to punish people for believing a certain thing or forcing them to do anything.

You certainly appeared to support punishing people who chose for reasons of faith to not take their children to the doctor. If that isn't punishing people for believing a certain way or an attempt to force them to conform to something other than their beliefs I don't know what it is.

I would punish the worst-case outcome when common treatments they could have sought are ignored. Besides, they have a choice! You love choices, right? They can use faith healing and hope their kid doesn't die and they go to prison -- or they can responsibly seek the advice of a medical professional when it turns out their methods aren't working and their dependent's health takes a turn for the worse.

They can choose punishment for following their beliefs or be coerced into compromising them. Conform or be punished, but somehow this isn't punishing people for following their beliefs?

We cannot legislate danger out of the world. And trying to do so only creates different dangers.

So why bother, right? Let's hand a gun to every citizen no matter what, let parents fill their suffering, cancer-ridden children with pleasant thoughts in high hopes that everything turns out okay, remove all stoplights, get rid of law enforcement, remove sanitation standards, building codes, workplace safety codes, food inspection, and do away with any standards we uphold against convicted criminals.

Really now, where are you drawing the line on "legislating danger"? You really have to help me out here because you're being awfully ambiguous.

No, I'm not. That you're just flailing about with wild comments that imply that you think I'm advocating chaos because I don't agree with your preferred way of trying to manufacture order does not mean I am being ambiguous. Next time, try not starting with the "guess you want to let anyone do anything" silliness, and just ask me what I think. I don't have to be manipulated into answering questions. Which isn't to say I will give you the answers you like, but I will answer direct questions.

I tend to oppose trying to legislate danger away, because in general it doesn't work. I prefer using government to protect the rights of individuals. Which does sometimes mean government is protecting people from danger, like murder or pollution (though I would not handle pollution the way it has been, but that is a different discussion). But trying to use government to eliminate all or most dangers in life is impractical, counterproductive and costly. And using government to force people to "contribute" to social programs is, imo, immoral (but that too is a different discussion).

Yes I am, because you've failed to address when I do and do not have to respect someone's religion. If Jesus tells me to get in a car and drive and I hit someone on accident, under the logic you've provided, any attempt to bring me to justice is an attack on my religious freedom. If it sounds absurd, it's because it is.

But I'm not the one making it absurd. And no, you're not using my logic. The parents in question did not cause the harm to their children. They only chose not to seek medical help for it, which is not the same as causing harm to someone else.

No, I'm trying to figure out where you stand because you haven't been very clear on the matter and you haven't set a single standard of to what extremes you'd take your anti-government legislatory ideology except to tell me when I've hit on something absurd.

If a responsible adult wants to decide for themselves that Jesus can cure their malignant tumor, fine, I hope they're ready to deal with the consequence of that. Pretending that faith healing is a responsible decision when someone else who cannot decide for themselves is forced to deal with it is foolish.

Your examples are poor ones. In the latter two, the death wasn't a result of a direct decision the adult made to deny them proven medical treatment. Choosing faith healing is not a freak accident, it is an intentional choice, whether or not the outcome is death. In the first example, it would be negligent of the father to make his son lay on the ground in the woods and sprinkle him with dirt in hopes that the magic woodland fairies would come sprinkle him with healing dust if a reasonable attempt could be made to find help nearby.

You're not answering the questions. And still avoiding the more important question of where do you draw the line. Taking one's son to the woods where medical help is not readily available is an intentional choice. Parents not taking a gang awareness class because they do not believe their child would ever join a gang is an intentional choice. If intentional choice is the heart of the issue, then where do you draw the line?

So I'm just curious: does anyone else find it a little funny these posts are growing gradually longer when they're all saying the same thing, that thing being, "Choice should never be limited regardless of unintentional consequences," while all the responses to that position are essentially, "But look at all these unintentional consequences?"

I mean, regardless of my own opinion on the subject, it's hilarious just watching this so obviously futile argument go around in circles.

Indeed, this has gone ad absurdum and I get the feeling that not only has the tone of the argument grown a little sharper than I'd like to carry on with, but we're very wildly off topic. I have issues arguing about sinister paintings of exaggerated level of government control as equally as I have issues arguing that all businesses are greedy, evil demons, neither of which I actually believe in and being thoroughly unconvinced that the private sector can and will solve all of our problems is a debate for another topic. We obviously fundamentally disagree on the role of the government and we're sitting at two ends of the spectrum with you defending the private sector as being not as sinister as I'm apparently painting it to be and myself defending government as being not as sinister as you are making it out to be, either. This is why I sit at the center, between the two, ideologically, but I digress :)

I have to know, though. Would you do away with child abuse laws, Xajow? One thing that has hit me as odd about the examples you're giving is that they often treat children like property and that parents are free to do as they like to their kids in good faith, which I think is what has troubled me the most about that particular portion of the debate.

Just for the sake of clarity, the whole quote you're crying foul on looks more like so:

Quote

we have no need for this if the parents didn't mean to kill their kid

.

Notice where the emphasis in that sentence is. It's not if the parents didn't mean to kill their kid, which contextually casts doubt on their intention -- it was more of a pleading, "but I didn't mean to!" Of course you didn't mean to knock over an expensive vase and break it, but the point is that it's destroyed and you're responsible for breaking it. I hope this is clear now.

I have to know, though. Would you do away with child abuse laws, Xajow? One thing that has hit me as odd about the examples you're giving is that they often treat children like property and that parents are free to do as they like to their kids in good faith, which I think is what has troubled me the most about that particular portion of the debate.

In general, no. But again, it depends on how you define things. For example, statutory rape laws that put on sex offender registries for life a person whose "crime" is that when he was 15 had sex with someone who was 16, those sort of laws I would prefer to see at the very least seriously revised. I'm not arguing in favor of statutory rape. I'm suggesting laws with unjust consequences should not be left unchallenged simply because the laws started with good intentions to protect children. We can have just laws and still protect children from predators.